October 23, 2008

"Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

When is the press going to force Joe Biden to explain what the hell he meant by that? And, generally, when is the press going to pay attention to Biden's mistakes? Kirsten Powers would like to know.

The stock answer is: "It's just Biden being Biden." We all know how smart he is about foreign policy, so it's not the same as when Sarah Palin says something that seems off....

And Biden is the foreign-policy gravitas on the Democratic ticket, so his comments are actually even more disconcerting.

Even those who support Obama -- not all, but some -- are getting nauseated by the press bias. And it's not just the bias. I'm really queasy about that future Biden is foreseeing. He has access to all sorts of reports of threats that we can't be told. It's as if he's taunting us with his inside knowledge. There will be -- what? -- attacks? And is Obama already planning to respond in ways that they know will dismay us? Tell us more. Is it about Israel?

85 comments:

"Even those who support Obama -- not all, but some -- are getting nauseated by the press bias."

That's what unaccountability does. They're never going to be called to account, either on an individual or institutional level, and of course they want to tilt - and now their reputation is already in tatters, so why wouldn't they go all in?

Powers is wrong, by the way - it's not that Biden "[g]ets away with endless idiotic comments because his media-elite pals 'know' he's no idiot"; they know full well that he is. He gets away with it because his "media-elite pals" are running interference, in turn because that's what the Obama campaign needs them to do.

I don't know how anyone who recognizes the press bias this year can vote for Obama. Nothing about him has been rigorously investigated. Instead, potentially troubling issues are simply explained away or dismissed as "distractions". Obama is a complete unknown, and he has admitted that people project their own desires onto him.

If McCain were to help an old lady across the street, the press would report how a 78-year old man tied up traffic as he slowly made his way across a busy street, possibly causing an ambulance on the road to delay medical care to an injured child. If Obama's motorcade ran over and killed an old lady on the way to a fundraiser, it woul be reported that Obama is already saving the country money on social security payments and health care costs for the elderly.

And it is about Israel. Biden is preparing the country for when the Obama adminstration votes "present" after Iran/Hezballah attack Israel.

One of the most interesting things about the charismatic leader is his hypnotic effect. Of course, hypnosis is not something the hypnotist does. People hypnotize themselves.

Very, very, very intelligent people can end up following a charismatic leader. They think it’s impossible that they can fall under the spell because they’re too smart.

The spell is typically not broken until the cloud castles built by charismatic leader begin to dissipate or are destroyed. Ad hominem attacks on the charismatic leader and/or his policies will not work. The opponent must provide plans that are logically superior to the charismatic, even then most followers will not be swayed.

I'm an almost daily watcher of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. That's where I get all my mainstream news. One thing I've admired about them is that in the past they've made fun of both candidates equally without apparent regard for party. That suits my own political beliefs just fine -- I wholeheartedly agree with both the many Democrats who think McCain is a stooge and the many Republicans who think Obama is a stooge (All those people can't be wrong, can they?) But in the past couple weeks or so I've noticed that virtually all of Stewart-Colbert's mockery seems to be directed towards McCain-Palin and very little towards Obama-Biden. The suspicion that Stewart-Colbert actually care about the outcome of the election and may even be trying to influence it saddens me. The esteem I've held them in has been knocked down a few notches thereby.

What Biden knows is that if elected he and Obama have many disasters to try to clean up. I think he will say or do anything to throw the election. He does not want responsibility for the disasters in foreign policy or domestic.

The idea of kicking around McCain/Palin for the next 4 years is attractive to me. And we can continue to blame repubs for what they have done during the last 28.

Furthermore, the Joe the Plumbers in this country are on a mission of self annihilation, and I do want to see them taught a real good lesson. I will be taking the old school conservative P.O.V. during a McCain/ Palin regime, and fighting like a dog to make sure people like Joe receive not one stinkin' dime from the government. And fighting to cut every goddamn government program. These right-wing under $50,000/yr. idiots must not get one cent from the government, and need to be revealed for the self loathing morons they are. I say more tax cuts for people earning over $250,000/yr.

And it is about Israel. Biden is preparing the country for when the Obama adminstration votes "present" after Iran/Hezballah attack Israel.

Do you honestly believe, Ann - for even one second - that any world leader looks upon and fears Obama and his response to a provocation the same way that any world leader views John McCain?

There are some things so simple to figure out that you can see them even in Madison, Wisconsin.

How can anyone in the world take them seriously, when Barack Obama and his lean, mean team of 500 foreign policy advisers can't even manage to achieve a diplomatic triumph over Joe Biden's mouth?-Bill Dyer

CraigE:"And it is about Israel. Biden is preparing the country for when the Obama adminstration votes "present" after Iran/Hezballah attack Israel."

More likely is Israel/Iran (one or the other) making a preemptive strike on the others nuclear facilities.Price of Crude goes to $200 a barrel.Something is going to move on this matter. Iran is suffering crippling inflation compounded by falling oil prices. There's going to be an 'incident'. Persian Gulf is my bet.

1) All abortion, all the time - first thing Obama promised to sign! No restrictions whatsoever AND taxpayers will start to pay for abortions.

2) Union intimidation "Card Check" will be passed.

3) the Fairness Doctrine will allow the Democrat Government of the US to shut down the first amendment rights of people they disagree with. Government censorship. It always happens when Democrats gain power: Fascism.

All you Obama voters now, repeat after Ann:

"I, (your name) Ann Althouse, choosing of a free mind to fuck the military and security of the United States, promote fascism, force all Americans to pay for abortions at any month or condition of pregnancy, do promise to vote for and wholeheartedly support the Obama and his queen, even after he is tested and the US is attacked, and it becomes apparent that he has no clue what to do. Includes his pre-planned sell-out of Israel, Turkey, Georgia, Sudan.

In the name above all exotic sounding names, and any god as long as it's not the God talked about in the Bible,Amen".

If anything has happened since the tickets were set and the conventions held to identify the key issue, this was it. No amount of focus on Sarah Palin (mostly ridiculous), McCain's inept campaigning (largely the case), questionable relationship (reluctantly skimmed by the MSM), etc. can take away from the fact that Obama is untested and even his running mate acknowledges it.

All these great speeches, wide spread adoration, and (unrealistic but great sounding) proposals have nothing to do with leadership.

No doubt, many will want to ignore Biden, all they have to do is dance for another week and a half.

I think you nailed the problem here...it's not just that there's media bias, but the fact that Biden is opaquely referring to "specific scenarios." That's the troubling part that we need more details on. My guess is that his running mate might be equally surprised to hear what those are.

Didn't Michelle threaten that "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed"? And remember this from Jim Lindgren? And haven't several Democrats - some of them now quite prominent - introduced bills in recent years reintroducing a draft?

Hayek warned us of men who want to organize society. And Barack? Anything about him that makes us think he's something of an organizer?

Biden being Biden, there is probably nothing to his statement--pure ad-lib, with no thought process involved. But just as an excercise, here is what I think:

He was talking to Obama/Biden supporters, so the unpopular way the crisis is handled will be unpopular to them, not necessarily unpopular with the public at large.

How about this: Iran sets off a nuke in a test blast. Obama responds by unleashing a broad air campain against industrial and military targets throughout Iran. This would achieve two goals: 1. Buy lots of good will among conservatives. 2. Scare the crap out of any group that might have thought the United States could now be pushed around. The bombing campain would presumable be unpopular with the group which now supports Obama.

AJ Lynch said..."Will the Fairness Doctrine apply to blogs and doing the googles on the internets?"

If they can get away with it, sure. If they just regulate what used to be regulated, that's not going to serve their purpose because those formerly-regulated outlets no longer comprise such a high percentage of media outlets.

You have to keep in mind the significance of the mere fact that they want to reintroduce the fairness doctrine. Think about the original rationalization for the doctrine: limited spectra. There's only so many airwaves, so just as the government had to step in to parcel out frequencies, so too it has to make sure that the limited resource is being used equitably. But that world is dead and gone; satellite radio has completely eviscerated the technical justification for the fairness doctrine. So the fact that they want to reintroduce it anyway should tell us something about their motives - namely that it isn't about fair sharing of a public resource.

Do any of y'alls recollect the recent pirate capture of an Iranian ship off the coast of Somalia?

The pirates, who started rummaging around in the cargo, somehow started dying of symptoms remarkable similar to radiation sickness.

Autumn winds in the Med are generally from the west.

Russian sources have stated that the containers were filled with highly radioactive sand and dust from China -- consistent with the pirates' problems -- and were also rigged with high-explosive charges, as was the ship.

So they go through the Suez Canal and wait west of Israel for the right winds.

The chances are much better than even that this was an attempted Iranian "dirty bomb" attack on Israel which, thanks to some pirates, failed.

The chances that Israel will not understand ... are asymptotically approaching zero.

Remember, Biden was talking to his supporters, so what he was warning them against was that Obama would have to do something distasteful to them. Which migh tjust be acceptable to the rest of us who don't support these two.

"Obama responds by unleashing a broad air campain against industrial and military targets throughout Iran."

Wouldn't that make the rest of the world kind of unhappy with us? Shouldn't he take a quick opinion poll of world leaders first? Not to mention, we definitely shouldn't act without a mandate from the United Nations, we definitely shouldn't fight a preemptive war, and we definitely shouldn't fight a war of choice.

"The bombing campain would presumable be unpopular with the group which now supports Obama."

And if that happens, what could possibly placate his base? What bit of red meat could be thrown? Why, yes, the investigation and prosecution of former Bush administration officials.

That's daft. Who would he be drafting for what? The fundamental premise of his campaign is military withdrawal from Iraq. Obama's not going to ship more troops into that country and despite his talking points about Afghanistan a heavy military footprint in Kabul isn't logistically possible.

I think Biden started chasing a "what-if" hypothetical and even he doesn't where it is taking him. He sees the dippy idealism that drives Obama's campaign and knows that Obama can't deliver on expectations, but he's as vague as the rest of us about how Obama will fail first. Maybe the oceans will continue to rise.

Whether disaster strikes in Afghanistan or Galveston, Biden is asking Obama's supporters -- and the media -- to forgive him in advance. He wants a rainy day fund for ass covering.

I agree that Biden is trying to provide some lubrication in future months for what promises to be a wild, wild ride; and that he doesn't know which disaster will happen, but that it's very likely that at least one will, of the many possible.

And maybe he's trying to remind us of how Kennedy-esque Obama is; Obama, the Marxist, and Kennedy, the anticommunist. They're both young, you see. And maybe idiot Biden is trying to make the coming days seem like one big rollicking adventure -- who doesn't like adventure?

Here are a few possible catastrophes, with Obama's likely unpopular reaction:

1) Israel strikes Iran; Obama condemns Israel, cuts off all aid, cancels all military contracts, and leaves Israel for the vultures.

2) Iran strikes Israel; see 1 above.

3) Newly emboldened Al Quaeda smuggles the components to a nuclear weapon, purchased from Pakistan, across our porous southern border in trucks, driven by swarthy men that appear to be Mexican, assemble and detonate said device in major US city. Obama reacts by suspending habeus corpus, rounding up first all firearms and then all detractors, nationalizes all industries, cancels 2012 election.

integrity said... "These right-wing under $50,000/yr. idiots must not get one cent from the government, and need to be revealed for the self loathing morons they are. I say more tax cuts for people earning over $250,000/yr."

Mr Integrity.. There are many reasons why I oppose wealth redistribution, but I will just state the most obvious. - I don’t want money I didn’t earn. I don’t think it is right to take from others when I haven’t earned it.

I think the Iraninans would love to have the test blast be in Tel Aviv, but suspect they won't be able to achieve this. Their firt bomb will probably be big and crude like the first ones we made back in WWII. Probably too big to even fit it on one of their missiles.

The left will complain when the bombing campain begins, but once it becomes apparent that the whole war will be from 30,000 ft. they will fade.

I agree, in part, with Lopez. For anyone paying attention, Obama's lovely speeches are full of loopholes. He not supports off shore drilling, knowing full well his minions will produce roadblocks to prevent it. He supports nuclear power if solutions to the waste can be found, knowing full well that no solution will ever satisfy him. He says he will defend America, knowing full well with a draft enough people will protest to give him cover to pursue nothing but diplomatic solutions. Our enemies are not stupid. They will take full advantage.

Pundit Joe said... integrity said... "These right-wing under $50,000/yr. idiots must not get one cent from the government, and need to be revealed for the self loathing morons they are. I say more tax cuts for people earning over $250,000/yr."

Mr Integrity.. There are many reasons why I oppose wealth redistribution, but I will just state the most obvious. - I don’t want money I didn’t earn. I don’t think it is right to take from others when I haven’t earned it.

How does wanting to make it on my own translate into "self loathing"?

Let's get this straight Joe, you have redistributed all of your wealth to wealthy people. Nothing but a mindless zombie, and I am going to take folks like you on. How dare you spout talking points you learned from all your right-wing propagandist overlords. You fool, giving EVERYTHING to wealthy people that don't need it and in many cases don't want it(tax cuts from 2003). I really wanna see you destroyed financially, badly. I believe you and your kind have hastened your own demise, if only there were a way for me to know once you have killed yourself. You are a mindless corporate trained stepford. Self-loathing doesn't even begin to describe your sick psychological state. Right-wing conformist stooge fembot is more like it. Find your balls dirtbag. And hopefully go broke. I wanna see you screwed by corporations so bad I can taste it. Raise those insurance premiuims today, by as much as possible.

The reason folks aren't worked up is because this is Biden being Biden.

I'm sure that Biden is part of the BHO inner circle. And, I'm sure that they're talking about and preparing for any post-election possibilities--foriegn and domestic. No doubt Biden gets all excited when he can show off his inside knowledge. And, no doubt the BHO folks know that they may upset some of their less hawkish left coast fund raisers.

I'm happy to know the BHO folks are planning for multiple scenarios that could happen six months out. I'm not at all comforted that McCain deeply believes he has no need to plan for anything because his infallibility makes planning unnecessary--he'll just go with quick gut decisions as he reacts, rather than anticipates. (E.g. BHO was ringing the Hamas alarm bell before the 2006 election, and he warned about Georgia in April and July.)

McCain's problem with his coverage is that he's losing. That's why the press is reporting that he's losing. If McCain wants better press he should start winning. (And, teaching his VP that the VP isn't "in charge" of the Senate wouldn't hurt either.)

(1) We're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him.

Now where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah . . .

(2) TOM HAGAN [on phone] This is Tom Hagen. I'm calling for Vito Corleone, at his request. Now, you owe your Don a service. He has no doubt that you will repay it. Now, he will be at your funeral parlor in one hour. Be there to greet him.

[Cut to basement of Bonasera's funeral parlor. Two men carry a stretcher.]

VITO CORLEONE: Well, my friend, are you ready to do me this service?

BONASERA [nervously] Yes. What do you want me to do?

VITO CORLEONE: I want you to use all your powers. And all your skills. I don't want his mother to see him this way.

Why are some folks assuming Biden was hinting that BHO would disappoint folks by being less hawkish?

1) He was warning his left coast lefties.

2) He gave an example where a tested P stood strong and was hawkish. (And, going deeper; Biden gave an example where a P was originally too self-confident resulting in perceived weakness, when first tested. And then, the P had to re-assert himself with strength in a following situation, which was the particular situation Biden referenced. The BHO folks are ready for traps. McCain is not, because this time around he's the one going in with hubris, he's the one that would need to learn the hard way.)

Uncle Joe was so obtuse because he wanted to reassure a limited number of voters (i.e., people like me who support Israel) that they will respond appropriately when Israel takes out Iran's nuclear program. That's gonna happen after the elections.

He did not want to annoy the loony lefties and anti-semites that seem to increasingly flock to leftist politics. (I know, the far right used to be their refuge).

That said, I still do not trust Obama's instincts in such a crisis. At best, he will be marginally effective like Clinton. At worst, we will long for the days of Jimmy Carter.

In any case, the MSM will declare The Messiah's approach to be brilliant and transformative, even if the Middle East is transformed into a nuclear wasteland.

That's daft. Who would he be drafting for what? The fundamental premise of his campaign is military withdrawal from Iraq. Obama's not going to ship more troops into that country and despite his talking points about Afghanistan a heavy military footprint in Kabul isn't logistically possible.

If Obama wants a draft, it might not be for the military but for his Hitler Youth, er, civilian service corps. He stated he wanted it to be as big and well funded as the military. That'll take a lot of bodies.

That's right - it is what it is, which isn't what you say it is. She was asked a question by a child; she answered the question in terms a child could understand.

" And, she's been screwing up this question since Kudlow months ago"

Another lie, one that I put to rest two months ago. A lie, mind you, that doesn't even require extensive debunking, because the video is on youtube and the gloss that you people want to put on it doesn't even pass the laugh test. Put down your Obama talking points and think for yourself, 1jpb. Or does that violate the terms of your contract with Axelrod? Honestly, it's hard to tell if you're stupid enough to believe what you're saying or if you're actually bought and paid for.

Anyway - I'd like to believe Joe is setting the left up for a militarily muscular response to Iranian aggression or suchlike, but then I'd like to believe my income taxes won't go up, my free speech rights won't be restricted, and in unicorns.

Integrity - I hear ya buddy. I too want to see people making over 250K get a tax cut - they represent a large chunk of my husband's customer base and as a small business owner, I damned sure know where my self-interest lies - far away from Obama. I too will take a great deal of satisfaction in the Schadenfreude I'll get over the next four years of an Obama Democratic supermajority. The economic and foreign policy catastrophes that await us are really difficult to imagine, but I know for certain that a lot of people - a whole lot of people - will be regretting their votes before 2009 is out.

I think the Iraninans would love to have the test blast be in Tel Aviv, but suspect they won't be able to achieve this. Their firt bomb will probably be big and crude like the first ones we made back in WWII. Probably too big to even fit it on one of their missiles.

Building a small nuke, first time out tht can tolerate G forces is a problem.

The first bombs anybody produces are big bread-boarded things, but right sized for a cargo container. The Nuke that wipes out Tel Aviv won't be delivered by an IRBM. it will be in a container on a Maltese freighter sailing into the harbor. "Plausible deniability"

as for other threats?: The Ukrainians have got to be nervous about an Obama win.

Any direct assault to implement the Fairness Doctrine is liable to fail. It was originally legally based on the Red Lion case, which justified it based on limited bandwidth of the public airwaves. By the time that it was abolished under Reagan, many thought that Red Lion no longer made sense, and 20+ years later, it makes much less sense.

The other problem that they may face is that restrictions on broadcast TV is much more justifiable on Red Lion grounds, yet the major TV channels have about as much Fairness and diversity of viewpoint as do the stations carrying Rush, without all stations that radio has. Singling out AM radio and ignoring broadcast TV would likely be seen as arbitrary, capricious, and a fairly clear 1st Amdt. violation.

But I suspect that the real threat is in the FCC licensing program. The trick would be to reduce the relicensing cycle and require a lot more public service, which is arbitrary enough to allow left leaning FCC employees to put pressure on stations to dump conservative talk. Also, this would open an avenue for "community organizers" to pressure the agency for access (or, more accurately, to deny access to conservative talk because there would be no revenue in the talk that the community organizers would be pushing).

If Obama is indeed like JFK, we will have a crisis produced by the President's rhetoric while on the campaign trail (the Cuban Missile Crisis deriving from JFK's Missile Gap campaign rhetoric). Not to mention his reckless behavior while in office. I sincerely hope that BHO is no JFK! And having Biden one heartbeat away from the presidency makes me hope the Secret Service redoubles its efforts and keeps a possible President BHO safe at all costs.

Okay Mr. Integrity - What is the solution then? How should money be distributed if not via the current capitalist system? What would you like to see as the alternative?

I will assume you mean for the government to decide how resources should be distributed. If I am wrong, then please let me know.

All people, whether in government or private business are subject to the same human failings. The difference is that businesses are subject to various transparency rules that the government is not. Plus, they must contend with customers, lawsuits, and even criminal law. But what happens when the ones running the businesses are also the ones making the rules? When governments run things bureaucrats become unaccountable and untouchable – a dangerous situation when those very same folks hold a monopoly on the use of force.

So, to sum it up - You can trust government if you wish to make rules and control resource allocation, but I think it is a bad idea. Yes, I am for conservatism, but before that I am for what works and government control of wealth has never worked. Show me how your ideas work better and I will listen – I may even change my mind, but simply calling me names and wishing me dead will not change my mind.

Of course, our differences probably lay in our basic values. I suspect you put a very high value on equality as where I put a very high value on liberty. Liberty and equality of outcome cannot co-exist because inequality begins to appear as soon as people begin making different decisions about how to live their lives.

As for my psychological state – I am perfectly comfortable letting the others here judge. How well might you fair?

I'm happy to know the BHO folks are planning for multiple scenarios that could happen six months out. I'm not at all comforted that McCain deeply believes he has no need to plan for anything because his infallibility makes planning unnecessary--he'll just go with quick gut decisions as he reacts, rather than anticipates. (E.g. BHO was ringing the Hamas alarm bell before the 2006 election, and he warned about Georgia in April and July.)

It is nice for Obama to be trying to plan out all of his responses. But the reality is that he can't, and most likely, when the excrement hits the rotating blades, he won't be prepared for that precise scenario. There are just too many of them possible, with many too many permutations.

What he has never done is made life and death decisions for even himself, other than whether to put on his seatbelt or not. Heck, he rarely even makes moderately hard decisions, more likely voting present than taking a stand on some controversial issue.

It is nice that he wants to be prepared. But what happens when he needs to be a man of action, instead of a man of preparation and planning? When his actions, or his inactions may cost American lives?

Another problem that I see with Obama doing all this planning is that the information he will be getting as POTUS CIC is often incomplete, and contradictory. Instead of facing a nuclear warhead going off in Baltimore, he is more likely to face a PDB mentioning increased chatter and the possibility that OBL might be trying something with airplanes somewhere in the world.

1jpb said... "Simon, I figured it out: You don't know what VPs do. That's why you think Palin is correct."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Perhaps you could also tell me how many branches of government there are, I'm having difficulty recalling civics 101.

Why can't you just admit that your masters sent you out to defend an indefensible talking point (one that even you are belatedly realizing is dumb as a rock) to attack a woman who said something perfectly sensible?

The Russians have already tested the Euros and Americans on Georgia, and the west lost that one decisively. BHO will soono learn that when you are facing a major oil provider of your "allies" and a nuclear power with both tactical and strategic capability, your leverage drops of quickly. In a confrontation with Russia over rump republics, you will end up looking much more like Chamberlain than Churchill.

Let me add to my previous post, that it isn't sufficient for a president to react, but he also must react decisively. Last summer, and up until the financial crash, McCain and his campaign were routinely getting inside Obama's decision loop. That is the cost of being overly deliberative. The difference is that when playing the game with the Russians, Chinese, or Iranians, Obama won't have the MSM and a Congress run by his own party to pull his chestnuts out of the fire for him.

Part of the danger of an Obama presidency is that our enemies know that this is a weakness of his. He has no experience making major decisions under pressure, and instead is too likely to over-deliberate. This lengthens his decision cycle, letting them get inside it, which means that he would be reacting instead of making them react.

Note that the deliberate challenges a president gets soon after taking office are often dependent upon who he is. It is not really surprising that Eisenhower was not challenged, nor really was Reagan.

The difference here between the two candidates is that those intent on challenging our new president, know that McCain is likely to react decisively to protect our country. They don't know this with Obama, and are thus much more likely to test his mettle.

Bruce, nicely stated. While we here worry about how cranky and hotheaded McCain is, it works for us against our enemies. Because when they figure the calculus they have to assume he will play to win on offense. Obama has already signaled he intends to negotiate. And neither Obama or Biden has made a serious decision. So our enemies have every reason to probe.

I was in DC recently and heard whispers of the draft being reinstated through the Dems (Rangel has been talking about it for years), too.

Honestly? I honor the military service of our volunteers, and if I had a son who wanted to serve voluntarily under Pres. Obama, I'd have to support it. But I'll be damned if I'll let him serve under Obama via conscription. I'll help him out of the country first. Volunteer is one thing. Draft, quite another.

I'm not focused on the specifics because I'm sure that the BHO folks realize they can't predict what will happen. (Except that the specifics scenarios could be beneficial because the exercise of thinking about anticipating traps could logically lead to us thinking about how we could strategically set traps for our enemies first--wouldn't that be nice for a change.)

It's the mindset of being on the lookout for traps that's important. I have seen no evidence to suggest that McCain is worried about foreign (or domestic) policy traps. That's very bad, IMHO.

Yes, he's been a POW. Yes, he's been around DC forever. Yes, his foreign (and domestic) policy predictions have been totally wrong on important issues (such as what would happen in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan--a rather notable and troubling miscalculation.) No, he doesn't give ANY hint that he grasps his weaknesses.

Yes, that leaves a totally huge and open flank. Yes, that's a problem. (We can only hope that McCain does anticipate, and look out for traps, and think several steps down the road. We would need to hope that we don't know about this side of McCain because his campaign is tighter lipped than Biden is. But based on the NYT Magazine piece and the last few months such a hope seems rather hopeless.)

And, your suggestion that folks think they can predict McCain's reactions is precisely the problem. That is how adversaries set traps. McCain's hubris, rash decision making, unacknowledged mistaken predictions, and lack of anticipation are helpful to our adversaries.

In my first comment I posted links that show BHO has a record of anticipating issues. In addition to those issues he's been warning about terrorists and instability in Afganistan/Pakistan forever (well, since before the Iraq war.)

And, for all of McCain's surge talk. It should be remembered that Iraq has been essentially ethnically broken up with millions of folks moving out of areas controlled by opposing folks. And, don't forget that we payoff former enemies to keep them happy. And, in some ways Iran is closer to the Iraqi government than we are. And, Petraeus says that so-called traditional "victory" isn't an end goal in Iraq (does that make him anti-American.) And, anyone worried that the removal of our troops would cause the place to blowup is implicitly/explicitly admitting that there is no settlement (the stated reason for the surge.) That is, the most powerful military in the world (and ethnic separation, and payoffs, and Iraqis dealing w/ Iran) has put a cover on a boiling pot--but remove the cover and the boiling will erupt. And, this situation is suppose to be the proof that McCain is a good decision maker.

Yikes!

Simon,

You should look at the clip I added to my earlier comment. Even the official McCain campaign person had to acknowledge that Palin couldn't rewrite the constitution to her liking.

The great thing about Biden's quote is, because no one knows what the hell he's talking about, everyone thinks he is talking about the thing they are most afraid of.

Is Obama planning to betray Israel? To reinstate the draft? To pull out of Iraq? To allow Iran to get nukes?

I think this has to do with Iranian nukes. But maybe that's just because that's what I'm afraid of.

In any case, if Sarah Palin told people that a Barack Obama administration would give rise to fear and loathing within the first year, she would be crucified.

And if she told people that a John McCain administration would do that, she would be laughed at a stupid, ineffective, fearmongering woman.

I am afraid of an Obama administration--and Joe Biden says I'm right. What is Obama's secret plan that's so unpopular? Or does he have 5 different secret plans that are all super-unpopular, but he knows he can only get away with 1 of them? What are Barack Obama's secret hard-left fantasies that he wants to force on America, and doesn't want to tell us about ahead of time?

1jpb said..."You should look at the clip I added to my earlier comment. Even the official McCain campaign person had to acknowledge that Palin couldn't rewrite the constitution to her liking."

Let me get this right: your theory is because Nancy Pfotenhauer couldn't answer the question, and just because Chris Matthews doesn't know the answer to his own damned question, that means that Palin's answer is unsound? Pathetic. And Matthews is wrong, by the way - the Constitution does not say that the Vice President's role in the Senate is limited to breaking tie votes - it says that the Vice President will be the President of the Senate, but will only vote when necessary to break ties. What Matthews in his little paroxysm of scorn doesn't seem to grasp (and what you evidently do not either) is that the President of the Senate has a role as presiding officer independent of voting to break ties. The fact that no Vice President since Alben Barkley has regularly exercised their prerogatives does not mean that those prerogatives have disappeared.

Matthews got one thing right: he says that either Palin is wrong or he's wrong. Correct: one of them is wrong, and it isn't her.

Of course Obama wants a draft -- then he can prove that everything is "fair."

The fact that our military chooses to be where they are is not "fair?"

So Obama wants to make everyone have to go there for what? To demoralize the military so the socialist left libs can moralize about fulfilling our obligations to the Fatherland?

Problem here is the all volunteer military (which is doing just fine with volunteers, thank you) is not going to be too happy to have to integrate people who do not want to be there, when last year (or whenever) they did not have to be.

Re-enlistments will go down -- which will justify more the draft, which will produce a crop of men and women who are incompetent and angry about their lot in life.... Meanwhile, there will be mass attrition in the leadership and what comes in and up will be softened and unprepared to defend these United States. It's more important that to Barack Obama that we be liked as a nation, than respected for our sovereignty and ability to protect our own.

Disclosure - I have a son in the military. He has been in Iraq, has been a recruiter, is an officer, and will be headed back to Iraq next year to work with the Iraqi Army.

I am biased. But also perhaps have a handle on things a bit better than the nearby college kids who are lapping Obama up like milk by kittens.

I do not think I need to emphasize to you how strongly I feel about not having Barack Obama his commander-in-chief. Obama's relationships, associations, aspirations, and ideology, as well as judgement and common sense, lie outside the pale of being able to do the best for the United States of America as Commander in Chief.

Obama is completely clueless (even more so than WJC), and Saul Alinsky, who HATED America would be dancing in hell if there is one.

All the more reason this idolotry and messiahship is so profoundly disturbing.

Our kids need to be taught history without the "social justice" crap.

And yes, there is seriously some defect in Joe Biden's brain and judgment also.

And I'm getting really sick of these smug assholes - all three of the people on that hardball clip - saying the Constitution "as I understand it" does so and so - well gee, why don't you try reading it, and then maybe you'll understand it better? I know there are some very difficult, close questions that by no means easy to answer, but the question of what the Constitution in the literal sense says - that is, as opposed to what it means - really is as simple as reading it. And it does not say "the vice president takes over if the President dies and breaks tie votes in the Senate."

So Obama wants to make everyone have to go there for what? To demoralize the military so the socialist left libs can moralize about fulfilling our obligations to the Fatherland?

The Obama plan would be:

1. bring back a draft.2. what makes our military less effective rather than more3. It also generates more opposition to using our military4. It generates a pool of folks who would select an "alternative" to military service 5. thus fueling his "Public service Corps" equal in size and budget to DoD

1jpb said..."You can keep saying that the constitution says the VP is "in charge" of the Senate if you want to. One of us looks silly."

You're right - one of us does. The one with the reading comprehension problem. I didn't say that the veep was in charge of the Senate, I said that the definition spouted by Matthews is incomplete, and (by implication) that Palin's description of it was a perfectly reasonable way to explain what the vice President does to a child - which is who she was talking to!

The sad thing is, if Obama does try to re-institute the draft, or sits idly by while our allies are attacked, or proposes gutting the military, he will succeed.

Why? Because all of the "smart" people, like our hostess, Chris Buckley, the MSM talking heads and producers, NYT columnists, etc. will engage in unbelievably tortured logic to justify Obama's actions. Even if they would not have supported them prior to the election.

Why? Because their whole self image is tied up in being smart. Admitting that they were clearly and completely wrong about Obama , when all of the evidence was sitting before them, but was casually brushed off based upon "hope" or distaste for Palin's background, would shatter their self image. The easier and more likely will be to use their big brains to rationalize Obama's actions, lest their inferiors be proved correct.

When is the press going to force Joe Biden to explain what the hell he meant by that?

Um, is there supposed to be a hidden meaning? The press is completely in the tank for Obama. Biden was just asking them to keep it up after the election. There's no secret message in that; it means what it says.

The bias in the mainstream media is getting out of control. If you agree with the liberal illuminati, that's your preference. But as a main news source, you should focus on things supported not only by the left-wing, not all of America agrees with tolerants.